Posted on 10/20/2012 10:49:07 PM PDT by Altariel
There was nothing James Woods could do.
He screamed; he pleaded. ”Please don’t harm my dogs,” he begged police, who moments earlier had barged into his east-side home looking for marijuana.
Woods was forced into a corner last week when the first shot rang out – a 12-gauge shotgun. Woods’ young pit bull, Tank, who neighbors and witnesses say was confined to a locked fence outside and unable to harm anyone, lay dead in a puddle of blood, shot in the face.
Fearing police would hurt his two other dogs, who were inside the house, Woods cried out: “Please! They won’t hurt you! Stop chasing them! They’re just scared. ”
Witnesses told a consistent story: Police chased the dogs, Hump and Janey, around the house, shooting Woods’ longtime companions as they fled.
“They came in like they were shooting deer,” Woods said.
Janey, a small, older pit bull, dragged a trail of blood around the house until she finally collapsed.
“They shot her four times as she was trying to get away,” Woods said, his pale blue eyes welling up. “She didn’t have a chance. It just isn’t right.”
Neighbors said the three dogs, which included a German shepherd mix, were tame and friendly.
“They were good dogs,” a neighbor said.
Police didn’t respond to calls or emails for comment.
Woods, a financially struggling jack-of-all-trades, spent the next two days in jail, grieving his companions.
His friend, Scott Kraz, photographed the carcasses in hopes of proving that police shot the dogs from behind.
“From the position of the two dogs inside the building, they were running away from the door, away from the police,” Kraz said.
After collecting the evidence, Kraz buried the three dogs in the front yard of the home, where Woods now lives alone, with a heavy heart.
On Tuesday afternoon, Woods finished up a long day of trimming trees and sparked a cigarette.
“They killed my dogs,” he said, shaking his head. “The Detroit Police Department murdered my dogs.”
(Kiss off your favorite recliner)
I recognize the assumption, just as I recognize the lack of evidence for said assumption.
There is evidence for the cops’ guilt: three dead dogs.
There has been none presented for the man’s alleged guilt, yet you cling to that assumption without evidence for it.
Given this is becoming an all to standard way of amped-up, swat teams of dealing with anyone’s dogs they happen to see, anywhere, and given it was a hyped up swat team playing military, I tend to believe the neighbors and witnesses accounts. They could easily have been lying but pictures taken of the dead body of a dog outside in a locked fenced in cage proves that dog was not a threat to any of the swat team. they shot the first dog outside, and made a decision they were going to eliminate any other dog they found anywhere else.
And further SWAT was never sold to people to go after ONE FREAKING person. They were to be used against hardened drug houses and gangs. That was the excuse/explanation for the armor and firepower and tougher tactics. Not for one freaking guy living in a regular apartment, who MAY or MAY NOT - by your own admission - be doing something with pot.
So how much marijuana did they find?
At present, there is no evidence that any was found.
You talk about enormous potential personal rights violations by armed agents of the government so cavalierly.
I suppose you’d feel that way if they guessed wrong about you. Oh we had a hunch, and now all your pets are dead and your house is smashed up, you were threatened at gunpoint.
ANd you realize that the longtime pets you had aren’t just like a vcr or toaster that you can simply replace with an identical whatever. And that you almost joined them.
Yeah, I’d take that real casual too. This country is becoming (and is) a damn police state and the police officers #1 order is “Officer Safety Above Everything Else” including your constitutional rights and your life, even if they f%@k up royally - nobody will even get fired, and they won’t worry about what they did to you because YOU WILL BE DEAD and what can a damn jury do for you then?!?!
That’s what the deal is going on here. Wake up. They are terrorizing regular people here, even when they get the intel wrong and kill the wrong innocent people. No repercussions of any magnitude for any of them. Government is untouchable. Does the chief lose his job? Does the swat team get disbanded? Does the swat leader get fired and go to jail? Do any of them lose pensions over accidental innocent deaths? Nope.
The effing sheeple are just supposed to sit back, and take it, and pray the cops don’t accidentally riad their house, shoot their animals and bust the place up, either because some loser trying to get a plea deal gives their address, or the cops eff up all by themselves and park in front of the wrong house or type the wrong address on the warrant.
I bet the guy arguing with you and me loves it when he has to be treated like a criminal being searched by our beloved TSA gropers/glorified baggage checkers.
There is nothing in the report that supports that - the guy spent two days in lockup and I don't see that happening in a case where shots were fired and police were endangered!
Just from experience, decades of it, I'll trust the average pit bull and fear the average police officer whenever there might be a blind choice to be made.
You've created a scenario beyond the given or known facts and that scenario justifies your prejudice.
If anywhere in the reportage I'd have been told that a stash, or plants, were found within the range of the dogs, or if there was any indication that the "confined" and "shot from behind" reports were untrue;
I would sadly have to give the cops a 50/50.
But that isn't the case, ergo likely unjustified killing of a domestic animal belonging go another person - or murder of a non human family member.
The presence of a word in the article title is not substantive evidence.
Setting a precedent by which government employees can get away with unconstitutional crimes against citizens simply because they use the right words (”pot bust”, “porn ring”, “child abuser”) in an attempt to smear the private citizen is a really bad idea.
We don’t have any “reason” at this point to assume this citizen is a criminal.
We do have three very good reasons to condemn the officers involved for criminal activity.
Indeed, the very behavior of the dogs indicates otherwise.
So you are basing his guilt on a headline writing sub-editer no more knowlegable about the incident than you are.
You are basing your wild flight of fantasy on the assumption "the police can do no wrong".
I am going on (apart from basic presumption of innocence) the situation when the Police PR clamps down and releases no information about their success, it's because they probably screwed up.
Now if I wanted to I could spin the passive phrase "looking for marijuana" that it was for their personal consumption, their snitch gave the name of a supplier (falsely), when they found there was no pot there, they got shirty. And because they are no longer allowed to beat up snitches, they shot some dogs. It fits the reported facts.
“So you are basing his guilt on a headline writing sub-editer no more knowlegable about the incident than you are. “
No, good grief. Have you read any of my posts.
I keep saying IF. IF. IF.
If he is indeed a pot grower, I think he bears some responsibility! He shouldn’t keep his dogs in a hazardous environment like that! It’s like taking your dogs with you to an armed robbery, and then getting mad when an overzealous security guard shoots him! Yes, the guard shouldn’t have been overzealous, but you know, you should not have brought your dog on an armed robbery either!
“The presence of a word in the article title is not substantive evidence.”
I’m not presenting it as evidence. This is not a court of law.
I am giving the OPINION that I think DOPE GROWERS should not FUSS if cops shoot their dogs. Because they endangered their dogs in the first place.
This man may have been framed. I have made it quite clear, repeatedly, that in that case he has my sympathy.
“But that isn’t the case, ergo likely unjustified killing of a domestic animal belonging go another person”
It’s all inferred information due to a terribly written article. I’ve said so more times than I care to rehearse now.
The man could be guilty; or innocent.
If he is indeed a pot grower, he was wrong to keep his dogs there with it, whether as companions, security, or rat control. Because a pot growing operations is subject to a high level of violence, and dogs get caught up in it.
I might say that because “dog shot” and “owner claims” is in the article, you assume that cops killed innocent dogs for no reason. You are doing some inferring yourself!
“You talk about enormous potential personal rights violations by armed agents of the government so cavalierly.”
No, I don’t. I don’t support no-knock warrants, or seizure of personal assets before conviction. Why assume so? You are leaping to conclusions.
I also don’t support drug dealers whining when their animals get shot, whether by cops or rivals or thieves. They have deliberately endangered their animals having them live at the pot grow or the meth lab or wherever. I think it’s indefensible, and they have nothing to whine about.
The dogs have something to whine about, but of course they are dead.
“I tend to believe the neighbors and witnesses accounts.”
So do I, if there are enough of them. I also think most cops are decent.
I do NOT support amped up SWAT teams, and the number of people on this thread saying I do is absurd. Just because I don’t think a person involved in criminal activity should fuss when his dogs are killed while he pursues his crime of choice does NOT mean that I think amped up SWAT teams should kill retreating dogs.
Talk about jumping to conclusions.
“here has been none presented for the man’s alleged guilt, yet you cling to that assumption without evidence for it.”
I know that warrants are only issued on probable cause. I know also that a handful of times a year, they are not done on the right person. Usually, though, they are.
I have said. . . repeatedly. . . that this man may be innocent, and if he is, he is nothing but a victim.
But my opinion that a drug dealer has nothing to cry about when his dogs are killed at his grow operation stands. Whether this guy is a dealer or not. Don’t take your dog along on your criminal forays and then carry on when they get hurt or killed.
Pavlov programmed the dogs to believe when they heard the bell, without ever even seeing the food. You've been programmed to assume guilt when you see the words "pot bust", without even knowing if there was any pot.
“You’ve been programmed to assume guilt when you see the words “pot bust”, without even knowing if there was any pot. “
No, I have not, I have said repeatedly the man may be innocent and is entitled to his day in court. I am aware that innocent people are sometimes raided, and sometimes arrested.
Have you been programmed to hear “cop shoots dog” and immediately assume the cop is an evil thug?
You have also said repeatedly that he's responsible for endangering his dogs by running a pot growing operation. How do you do that without something suppressing the mechanism that should be telling you that both of those statements cannot simultaneously be true?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.